»The Advisory Opinion Could Reshape Global Climate Governance.«
Five Questions to Tejas Rao, Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger and Markus Gehring
Thema: Völkerrecht
Verfassungsrechtliche Aspekte des Völkerrechts, einschließlich der Integration völkerrechtlicher Normen in nationale Verfassungsordnungen, Vertragsabschlussbefugnisse, völkerrechtliche Verpflichtungen und verfassungsrechtliche Grenzen internationaler Bindungen. Umfasst die Schnittstelle zwischen nationalem Verfassungsrecht und völkerrechtlichen Verpflichtungen.
A »Democratic Exception« to ICC Jurisdiction
On 21 November 2024, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for the Israeli Prime Minister and the former Minister of Defence, for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in the ongoing Israel-Gaza War. Equally contentious was the response of leading Western states – including Germany and France – who have questioned or openly rejected treaty obligations to enforce the warrants. This is a conspicuously fraught position for countries who previously welcomed 2023 ICC arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin in legally identical circumstances.
Under Guise of War
The Knesset’s legislative work since October 2023 has included several legislative initiatives that may be creating a framework for furthering systemic discrimination against Arab Israelis. These new laws could pose a dangerous new precedent in Israel, stripping the right to equality and human dignity of their meaning and threatening the already fragile state of democracy as we know it.
The Return of Not-Quite „Phantom Experts“?
On Monday, 2 December 2024, the much anticipated hearing began in the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change advisory proceedings before the International Court of Justice. Less than a week before the start of the hearing, the Court issued a brief and unusual press release about a meeting that it held with scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Court’s decision to meet privately with the scientists raises questions about the Court’s procedures and its approach to evidence. Above all, it is unclear why the Court decided to consult with the IPCC scientists in a closed meeting rather than eliciting testimony from these individuals as part of the formal, public hearing.
Who Let the Bots Out
As artificial intelligence revolutionizes modern warfare, systems like Israel’s Lavender and Ukraine’s Clearview AI are transforming combat with precision and efficiency. This advancement has sparked an urgent debate on the responsible use and governance of AI in military, with 57 countries signing the Political Declaration on AI’s military applications, urging adherence to international law. Central to this is the accountability – who is responsible when AI systems violate laws? This blog post argues that state responsibility for AI violations remains viable within existing legal frameworks.
The Silence of the Israeli Supreme Court Judges
The arrest warrants by the ICC for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity are a red card for the Israeli legal system indicating grave doubts whether the Israeli legal system fulfills the complementarity requirement. Paradoxically, an indictment on the Israeli justice system arrives after the Israeli Supreme Court has recently fortified its position. Yet, the more the Court expanded its reach into the political arena, the less it could fulfill its core role of defending basic human rights.
Deporting the Enemy Within
Two weeks ago, the Israeli Knesset passed a law that grants the Minister of the Interior powers to deport family members of terrorists, including Israeli citizens. The logic of this law, its instrumentalization of legitimate security concerns to not just deny the rights and membership status of minority groups but attack the foundations of a constitutional system, is not unique to contemporary Israeli politics. As such, this logic needs confronting and refuting, and this law presents an important opportunity to do so.
A Piece of Advice
In this blog post, we discuss two pieces of advice about the legal and political consequences for the Netherlands arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. These are the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion of July 2024 and the Advisory Letter from the Dutch Advisory Council on International Affairs of October 2024. Both pieces of advice provide concrete recommendations, many of which, in our view, require fundamental changes in the current Dutch policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Dutch Government is constitutionally obliged to provide a meaningful response to both these pieces of advice. So far, however, it has failed to do so.
Farewell to the Rules-Based Order
As political analysts debate the reasons for Trump’s victory, one contributing factor is surely the utter failure of Biden’s Gaza policies. As the US has continued to fund an Israeli war of annihilation against Gaza, the democratic ticket became a hard sell for many who care about Palestinians. Yet, Gaza has also triggered a veritable renaissance of international litigation. With Gaza destroyed and Trump in the White House, this tension may have reached a terminal point. And yet, I argue, the ghost of a rule-based order lingers in our political imagination despite its inability to shape outcomes.
Two Courts, Two Visions
The diverging standards of protection concerning the right to a fair trial, as interpreted by the CJEU and the ECtHR, remain a critical obstacle to the EU’s renewed attempt at accession to the ECHR. In this field, the two Courts seem to be drifting further apart rather than converging, leading to unresolved conflicts between the standard of fundamental rights protection and mutual trust obligations in the EU. Except in the unlikely event of a course-correction by the CJEU, this means that we are no closer to accession today than we were ten years ago, when the now-infamous Opinion 2/13 was handed down.
